HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda
AGENDA
Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting
4:00 PM - Monday, August 3, 2015
Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Call to Order - Randy Corman, Chair
2. Commercial Arterial Development Rules Briefing
a) CA One Pager
b) CA Zones
3. Residential Building Heights Briefing
a) Code Interpretation
4. Docket 11 Briefing
a) Docket and Comprehensive Plan List
CA Zone Density Options
Background:
The City adopted and extended a moratorium on new residential development in the Commercial
Arterial (CA) zone. As part of the Comprhensive Plan update process, the City reviewed CA zoned
properties and rezoned a number of them, however, the concerns about high density development
were not resolved. The chief concern has been that there is not adequate infrastrucutre in place or
planned to accommodate high density residential development in areas outside the City Center and
Sunset areas. Another concern has been the quality of design of the high density mixed use
structures. Staff is beginning a work program to resolve the issues and enable the City to repeal the
moratorium.
• The CA zone allows 60 dwelling units per acre if the structure is mixed use.
Proposed Options:
• Option 1: Make no changes - In conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update, the
Code was amended to not allow new residential development in two Community Planning
areas: Valley and Benson. Under this option, the majority of the CA zone in the City would
be available for high density (60 du/acre) development, but no new high density multi-
family development would occur in the CA zones in Benson or the Valley. There may still be
concern about high density along the NE 4th corridor, the eastern portion of the NE Sunset
Blvd. corridor, and the northern portion of Kennydale east of the exit 7 interchange.
• Option 2: Scale density to arterial street classification - Given the concern about adequate
infrastructure, this option links transportation improvements and density. The higher class
arterials, with typically at least 4 lanes of roadway, would be allowed to the existing
maximum density of 60 dwelling units per acre. Scaling the density down as the arterial
class descends would be as follows:
o Principal Arterials = 60 du/acre
o Minor Arterials = 40 du/acre or 30 du/acre
o Collector Streets = 20 du/acre or 15 du/acre
• Option 3: Set density by Community Planning Area - This option furthers the policy
implemented with the moratorium that density in the CA zone can vary by Community
Planning Area. The moratorium allowed new residential development in the CA zone to
continue in the City Center Community Planning Area. An exception was made for the area
because it has either existing planned infrastructure that adequately addresses high
densities and because of its function as the City’s center. With this option, as areas develop
community plans, appropriate densities in the CA zone could be further evaluated. This
option would scale development by Community Planning Areas as follows:
o City Center = 60 du/acre
o Highlands = 40 du/acre or 30 du/acre
o Kennydale and East Plateau = 20 du/acre or 15 du/acre
o Valley
o Talbot 0 du/acre
o Benson
AGENDA ITEM #2. a)
CCeedd
aa
rr
RRiivveerr
SSpprriinn
ggbbrrooookk
CCrreeeekkSE 188TH ST
NE 12TH ST
F
O
R
E
STAVESESE 196TH ST78TH AVE SE66THAVESE VALLEY HWYHOQUIAM AVE NESE 48THDR
59TH AVE SEMERCERWAY8
0
T
H PL S
S 2ND ST
S222ND ST
SE 219THPL
135TH AVE SES ORCAS ST
132NDPLSE143RDPLSENE 27TH ST
SE221ST S T
S 208THST
SE179THST
CASCA D E KYSE 218THPL
S 196TH ST LAKEHURSTLNSE 225 TH ST 138THAVESE
L
A
K
E WA
S
HI
N
G
T
O
N B
L
V
D
S
SE 226TH STLINCOLNAVENE
SE 228THSTLIND AVE NWS 192ND ST
SE 224TH ST
SE 80TH ST
154THPLSE166TH
W
A
Y
S
E
S 218TH ST
SE2 2 3RD DR81STPLSES 132ND ST
TALBOTRDSINDUSTRYDR130TH AVE SE1
7
1
ST
PL
SE136THAVES
E
120TH PL SETUKWILAPKWY LAKEWASHINGTONBLVDSES PUGETDR SE 1 4 1 S T ST
S HOLLY ST
SE 176TH ST
WATERS AVE S
127THAVESE62ND AVE SSE 192ND ST
140TH WAY SE
SE88THPL
92ND AVE SSWLANGSTONRD
WESTL
A
KEDESIREDRSESHATTUCK AVE SNE 16TH ST
SE 72ND ST
BURNETTAVEN142ND AVE SESWSUNSETBLVD
SE56THST
SE 79TH DR
EDMONDS AVE NE100TH AVE SES188THST
S TOBIN ST
SE 180THSTLIND AVE SWS129THST
MONROEAVENESUNSETBLVDNES 226THST
N 6TH ST55TH AVE SSE 116TH ST
NE 7TH PL
SE 227THPL
N 3RD ST
I
NT
E
R
U
RBANAVES
S E 78TH STW MERCER WAYSEFAIRWOODBLVD
S 3RD ST
SE 60TH ST
SE 64THST
SLAKERIDGEDR
NE 8THST
L
A
K
E
WA
S
HIN
G
T
O
N B
L
V
D
N
164TH AVE SEBREMERTONAVENE94THAVESHOUSER WAY NNE7THST
129THPLSE120TH AVE SEHARRINGTONAVENE72ND AVE S106THAVESEABERDEEN AVE NENEWCASTLE WAY
156TH AVE SEPARKAVEN118TH AVE SE133RDAVES
ESE 58TH ST
S 204THST
N E 3 R D S T
S 180TH ST 84TH AVE SES 112TH ST
176TH AVE SESE 134TH ST
I-5FWYSE 200TH ST
S 1 2 4THST
134THAVESESE 221STPL
NE 6TH ST
NEPARK D RS BANGORST
STRANDER BLVD
SE 140TH ST
S E 46THWAY
SE 68TH ST
SE PETROVITSKY RD 160TH AVE SES ROXBURY ST
148TH AVE SE128TH AVE SESE47THST
175THAVESE52ND AVE S78TH AVE SSW 43RD ST 123RD AVE SENE9THST
SE 45TH ST
S W 1 0 T H S T
NE5THPL119THAVESE
S 228THST
SE80THWAY
57THAVES68TH AVE SNE 4TH ST
SE 223RD ST 124TH AVE SEFOREST DR SE
S RYAN ST
SE 164TH ST
C
ORNELLAVES117TH AVE SESE 121STPL
SE 142ND ST
S 128TH ST
144TH AVE SES 120TH ST
6TH AVE NSE 172ND ST LAKEMONT BLVD SESOUTHCENTERPKWYMAPLEVALLEYHWY
SE 162ND ST
VILLAGEPARKDRSEWIL
S
ONAVES166TH AVE SEHIGH AVE SSECARRRD
S E 4 T H S TSE RENTONMAPLEVALLEYRD
SE196T H D RPARKSIDEWAYSEBENSONRDS
SE 160TH ST
SE 44TH ST
MACA
DAMRDS
ANDOVER PARK WSE145THPL
SE 214TH STS216THST
4THAVENSENEWPORTWAY
SW 41ST ST
DU
V
A
L
LAVENESE70 T H S T
DIXONDRS 126THAVESESE 184TH ST 163RD PL SE80THAVESCRESTWOODDRSWESTVALLEYHWYSE 208TH ST90TH AVE SENILE AVE NESECOUGARMOUNTAINDR
SE5THST
140TH AVE SES18THST
S200TH ST
S38THCT
S E 165THST
SOUTHCENTER B L V D 184TH AVE SEHIGHLAND DR
NE 24THST
S E 1 45THST
SE 1 9 2NDDR
S 144TH ST51ST AVE SSW 7TH ST
SE MAY VALLEY RD
88THAVES56TH AVE SISLANDCRESTWAYNE 19TH ST
172ND AVE SE126THPL
S
E
SE 144TH ST
ANDOVERPARKE102ND AVE SESE 216TH ST
S212THST 129THAVESEPUGETDRSES 116THST
NEWCASTLEGOLFCLUBRD
S LEO ST
S E 51STST
RENT
O
N
AVESN/B I-405 RAMP
SE 204TH ST
NE 2ND ST
132ND AVE SESE89THPL
HARDIEAVESW125TH AVE SE127TH PL SESE46THST
161STAVESES W 1 2 T H S T
MARTINLKINGJRWAYS
SW 16TH ST 155THAVESE87THAVESRAINIER AVE S
N E S U N S E T B L V D
58TH AVE SCEDAR AVE S64TH AVE SN 4TH ST
SW 34TH ST
SE 168TH ST UNION AVE NEBEACON WAY S
SE 6TH ST
S 130TH ST
SW 3RD PL
SE92NDST
76TH AVE SSE128THST
SE 2ND PL
171STAVESE168TH AVE SEPELLY AVE NSE 186TH ST
SE 182ND ST
108THAVESESEWARD PARK AVE SN 30TH ST
SE 2ND ST
INTERURBAN TRAILS AVON ST JONESAVENESE JONES RD
S 190TH ST
SE 112TH ST
84TH AVE SKIRKLANDAVENES 55TH STOAKESDALEAVESW 174THAVESE150TH AVE SE181STAVESE116THAVESENE 10TH ST
S W G R AD YW A Y S E 149THST
BEACONCOAL
MIN
E
R
D
S
BENSON DR SSE 204TH W AYS LANGSTON RD LOGANAVEN113TH AVE SESE 63RDST
121STAVESE80THPLSESELICORIC
E
WAYS 134TH ST
EASTVALLEYRDSE43RDST
77THAVESEN 8TH STS/BI-405RAMPNE 17THST
SW 19TH ST
E
P
E
RI
ME
T
E
R
R
D
S 220TH ST I-405 RAMPSE160THPL
SO
O
S
CREEKTRAILI-405FWY136TH PL SE183RD AVE SEMIL
L A
VE
S
S178THST
89THAVESS E 95T H WAY
SR167RAMPI-5 RAMPS 194TH ST
S E 49THST
PEDESTRIANWALK
LAKEYOUNGSTRAIL56TH PL S
S212THWAYNE31STST
SR 167NI
SHI
WAKI
LNI-90 FWY
SERENTONISSAQUAHRD
S 133RD ST
S I DNEYAVEN
S 135THST
GREENRIVERTRAILCOALCREEKPKWYSE169THAVESE
S
E
W
A
R
D
PARKTRAILS
PIN
E
T
RAI
LWPERI
METERRDCEDAR RIVER TRAIL
LakeLakeBorenBoren
LakeLakeDesireDesire
I S SAQ U A HISSAQUAHMERCERMERCERISLANDISLAND
SE ATACSEATAC
B ELLE V U EBELLEVUE
N E W C ASTLENEWCASTLE
KE N TKENT
T U K WILATUKWILA
SE AT TLESEATTLE
K IN GKINGCOUNT YCOUNTY
CA
CA
CA
CACACA
CA
CA
CA
CACA
CA
§¨¦405
§¨¦5
§¨¦90
T900
T169
T515
T181
T167
LakeLakeYoungsYoungs
Panther LakePanther Lake
LakeLakeWashingtonWashington
µ
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
CA Zone & Planning Areas Renton Boundary
Benson
Cedar River
City Center
East Plateau
Fairwood
Highlands
Kennydale
Talbot
Valley
West Hill
Roads Classification
1-Principal Arterial
2-Minor Arterial
3-Collectors
Zone
Commercial Arterial
Date: 7/30/2015
AGENDA ITEM #2. b)
H:\CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket\Administrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-73 Page 1 of 6
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE
POLICY/CODE
INTERPRETATION
#: CI-73
MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS:
4-2-110A, 4-2-110B, 4-2-115.E.3, 4-11-020, 4-11-180
REFERENCE:
SUBJECT: Residential Building Height (RC thru R-14)
BACKGROUND: By definition, the current method to determine a building’s height is to measure
the average height of the highest roof surface from the grade plane. The
maximum height allowed in the RC through R-14 zones is 30 feet.
Issues stemming from existing code and consequent construction of new single
family houses include inappropriate massing relative to the existing and desired
character of neighborhoods, the loss of views from existing residences, and the
loss of direct sunlight on properties adjoining those with structures designed with
tall wall elements and shallow or flat roofs.
Shown below is a graphic included in the definition of “building height” to
illustrate the intent:
The definition does not explain how the average height of the roof surface is
measured, but the graphic implies the average would be the distance between
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
CI-73 Page 2 of 6
the top of the wall plate and the top of the roof. The definition provides a means
to measure the height of buildings with roof surfaces, not the “maximum height”
for all structures implied in RMC 4-2-110A. Any structure without a roof surface is
effectively unregulated (e.g., decks, railings, etc.). The definition, including the
graphic, does not provide a means to measure the overall height of buildings (the
vertical distance from the lowest grade to the highest point), and therefore the
application of a “maximum height” is unclear.
Consequently, while the “maximum height” in all zones from RC to R-14 is 30 feet,
certain designs and site topography can allow a single wall plate to be 30 feet tall,
and the overall height of the building to be close to 40 feet tall, thereby
contradicting the intent of applying a “maximum height.”
Below is a graphic that illustrates how the ambiguity of the definition results in a
contradiction of measuring building height and relegating the maximum height of
all structures to 30 feet.
JUSTIFICATION: Because steep roof pitches can result in buildings that are much taller than
intended by Title IV, the method of measuring height for residential structures in
the RC through R-14 Zones is proposed to be revised to measure the distance
between the highest point directly vertical of grade (except normal
encroachments like chimneys).
Additionally, application submittals for Modification Permits to allow a roof pitch
of 4:12 are exceedingly frequent. Allowing a roof pitch less than 6:12 can result in
a noticeably different massing of a building because the façade is able to be raised
relative to the reduced pitch of the roof. In response to apparent market demand
for roof pitches of 4:12, roof guidelines of RMC 4-2-115.E are proposed to be
reduced from a minimum roof pitch of 6:12 to 4:12.
To limit inappropriate massing and encourage pitched roofs, maximum wall plate
heights are proposed in combination with the revised building height
measurement. Flat-roofed buildings will have a maximum height equal to the
maximum wall plate height. This will likely remove the incentive to provide flat
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
CI-73 Page 3 of 6
roofs, and result in relatively equal massing between flat-roofed houses and
pitched-roofed houses (assuming all other variables are equal).
Because a roof could be designed with a 12:12 pitch (a 45o angle), an exception to
the maximum height for flat-roofed buildings is proposed that would require
additions to be far enough stepped back from the facade to be no less injurious to
adjoining properties than a 12:12 pitched roof. A step back ratio of one-and-a-half
(1.5) horizontal feet from each facade for each one (1) vertical foot above the
maximum wall plate height results in an 8:12 pitch, as measured from the wall
plate to the encroachment, and therefore blocks natural light no more than a
12:12 pitched roof (see graphic below).
DECISION: Residential building height in the RC through R-14 Zones shall be defined as the
vertical distance from finished grade to the highest point of the structure
(excepting normal encroachments like chimneys).
Wall plates shall not exceed 24’ in height. Roofs with a pitch greater than 4:12
shall not exceed 30’ in height, and roofs with a pitch less than 4:12 shall not
exceed 24’ in height. Maximum wall plate height and building height based on
roof pitch shall also apply to accessory structures and dwelling units.
Projections from a roof pitched less than 4:12 shall not extend above 24’ unless
the projection is stepped back one-and-a-half (1.5) horizontal feet from each
façade for every one (1) vertical foot above the maximum roofline height.
The definition of a “pitched roof” is redefined to specify a range of 4:12 to 12:12.
These development standards will be located in RMC 4-2-110(A – B), and
therefore deviation from these standards will require a variance.
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
CI-73 Page 4 of 6
ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVAL:
_______________________________________
C. E. “Chip” Vincent
DATE:
_______________________________________
APPEAL PROCESS: To appeal this determination, a written appeal--accompanied by the required
filing fee--must be filed with the City's Hearing Examiner (1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, WA 98057, 425-430-6515) no more than 14 days from the date of this
decision. Your submittal should explain the basis for the appeal. Section 4-8-110
of the Renton Municipal Code provides further information on the appeal
process.
CODE
AMENDMENTS
NEEDED TO
IMPLEMENT
DETERMINATIONS:
4-2-110A DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATIONS (PRIMARY AND
ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES)
RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 R-10 R-14
Maximum Wall
Plate and Building
Heights8, 9
4:12 to 12:12 Pitched Roofs: Wall Plate: 24 ft. / Building: 30 ft.
Less than 4:12 Pitched Roofs: Wall Plate: 24 ft. / Building: 24 ft.12
Residential: 30
ft.
Commercial:
20 ft.
4-2-110B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (DETACHED ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS)
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT
RC Accessory building – 15 ft.
R-1, R-4, R-6,
and R-8
Accessory building – 15 ft.
Accessory dwelling units and Animal husbandry or agricultural related structures – subject to
the maximum building height of RMC 4-2-110.A. 30 ft., except that the accessory unit
structure (dwelling space, garage space, etc.) shall not be taller than the primary dwelling.
Animal husbandry or agricultural related structures – 30 ft.
R-10 and R-14 Accessory building – 15 ft.
Accessory dwelling unit and Animal husbandry or agricultural related structures – subject to
the maximum building height of RMC 4-2-110.A.30 ft.
RM 25 ft., except in the RM-U District where the maximum height shall be determined through
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
CI-73 Page 5 of 6
the site plan review process.
Maximum Height for Public Facilities – see RMC 4-2-110D9.
Maximum Height for Wireless Communication Facilities (Including Amateur Radio Antennas)
RC, R-1, R-4,
R-6, R-8, R-10,
R-14, and RM
See RMC 4-4-140, Wireless Communication Facilities. Freestanding vertical monopole
amateur radio antennas are allowed a maximum height of 45 ft. without a Conditional Use
Permit. Taller structures will have maximum height determined pursuant to RMC 4-9-030,
Conditional Use Permits.
4-2-110D CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
12. Reserved. Projections from a roof pitched less than 4:12 shall not extend above 24’ unless the
projection is stepped back one-and-a-half (1.5) horizontal feet from each façade for every one (1)
vertical foot above the maximum roofline height.
4-2-115 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS:
E. REQUIREMENTS:
3. Residential Design:
ROOFS: Roof forms and profiles are an important component in the architectural character of homes and
contribute to the massing, scale, and proportion of the home. Roofs also provide opportunity to create variety,
especially for homes of the same model.
Guidelines: Roofs shall represent a variety of forms and profiles that add character and relief to the landscape
of the neighborhood. The use of bright colors, as well as roofing that is made of material like gravel and/or a
reflective material, is discouraged.
Standards:
RC and R-1 n/a
R-4, R-6, and
R-8
One of the following is required for all development:
1. Hip or gabled with at least a six four to twelve (64:12) pitch for the
prominent form of the roof (dormers, etc., may have lesser pitch), or
2. Shed roof.
Additionally, for subdivisions greater than nine (9) lots: A variety of roof forms appropriate
to the style of the home shall be used.
R-10 and R-Both of the following are required:
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
CI-73 Page 6 of 6
14 1. Primary roof pitch shall be a minimum six four to twelve (64:12). If a
gable roof is used, exit access from a third floor must face a public right-
of-way for emergency access, and
2. A variety of roofing colors shall be used within the development and all
roof material shall be fire retardant.
BUILDING HEIGHT: The measurement of building height depends on the type of structure and the
applicable zone, as follows:
1. Primary and accessory residential buildings within the RC, R-1, R-4, R-6, R-8, R-10, and R-
14 zoning districts: The vertical distance from finished grade to the highest point of the
structure or any portion of other structures (e.g., decks), excluding chimneys, ventilation
stacks, and similar elements as determined by the Administrator.
2. All other buildings: The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of the
highest roof surface.
STAFF CONTACT: Paul Hintz, x7436
AGENDA ITEM #3. a)
C:\Users\phintz\Desktop\Docket 11.doc
TITLE IV - DOCKET AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN updated 07.16.2015
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TITLE IV DOCKET
Initiated by/
Assigned to Date Form Amendment
Request
Technical
/Policy
Rocale/Chip 09.27.10 Email Density bonuses in the R-14, RM-U, and COR zones
Review the provisions for density bonuses and establish a direct correlation to the
bonus criteria and the number of bonus units allowed.
T
Laureen and Rocale 04.18.12
04.09.14
Email Modifications Subsection
Amend RMC 4-2-115 by adding a new subsection “Modifications” that references
RMC 4-9-250D and clarifies that the appropriate means for modifying the
Residential Design and Open Space Standards is a “modification”.
P
Jennifer, as
requested by
Graffiti Task Force
01.16.14 Email Graffiti on Signs
Graffiti “tags” are not allowed on signs, even if the sign was created for a
business as a mural and the artist is a tagger.
P
Vanessa 08.29.14 Email Public Meetings
Consider requiring a public meeting (neighborhood meeting) for subdivisions.
This applies to formal plats, not short plats and includes staff and the developer.
Chip 07.16.15 Verbal Street Frontage Improvements
Review fee-in-lieu of program for frontage improvements in consideration of
areas with no frontage improvements, such as the Benson area.
Rocale 04.13.15 Email Installation of Public Information Sign
Currently only subdivisions require the placement of a Public Information
Sign prior to land use entitlement submittal. However, there are several
commercial and other residential projects from which the public could
benefit from information posted on a public information sign. A public
information sign be required for all Type II permits or greater. Additionally,
the description of a public information sign can only be found in RMC 4-7-
070.G. In my opinion this description should also be moved to RMC 4-8-
090.
Angie 07.10.15 Email Downtown Business District Map
Review the current Downtown Business District Map based on the work
completed by the City Center Community Plan Advisory Board and Planning
Commission.
Ongoing/Already Initiated Docket #11 Staff Recommendation AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 2 of 7
Staff N/A Design standards for development based on the type of use
Currently, the design standards based on locational criteria, by zone or overlay.
This item would explore applying design standards based on use, for example a
retail business or office building. The manner in which the standards are
currently applied gives the benefit of design standards to some areas, while other
areas do not receive this benefit. Additionally, this would make the design
standards easier to understand and administer.
P
Chip 08.05.10 Email Outdoor storage
The code is ambiguous regarding what is considered outside storage and where it
is or is not appropriate. Additionally, regulations for “Bulk Storage Facilities”
constitute a large portion of our code, yet have not been needed in 2 decades.
Should we consider streamlining if not eliminating these storage-related
regulations?
P
Jennifer/Chip 01.06.11 Email Public Facilities Permit
A new Public Facilities Permit would allow greater flexibility to authorize City
facilities in proximity to where services from the facility are delivered to the
public. The current system allows certain types of City facilities in certain zone
classifications. A new Public Facilities Permit could be permitted outright,
administratively, or through a public hearing process depending on the public
facility’s location, zone and impact to surrounding land uses irrespective of
zoning classification.
P
Neil/Kris 01.12.12
05.04.10
Email Alternative Energy & Small Wind Turbines
Update code to encourage installations of alternative energy facilities in
locations/situations which the city deems desirable. Establish where small wind
turbines are allowed and standards to provide guidance on definitions, setbacks,
height limits, and other related code sections.
Rocale 03.06.12 Email Landscape Standards Exemptions
Include zones that can be reduced to zero from the exemption for a 10 foot
landscape strip (RMC 4-7-070F) to eliminate the need for a modification from the
landscaping standards
P
Rocale 03.21.13 Email Minor Plat Modification
Create a formal process to change from a Preliminary Plat to a Short Plat P
Rocale 03.31.14 Email Notice Requirements
Allow for parties of record (including applicants, owners, etc,) to receive
electronic correspondence instead of snail mail correspondence for a project.
This would significantly reduce our paper, ink, and postage costs.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 3 of 7
Jennifer 06.13.14 Email Fee Simple
This was requested by the Master Builders: Consider adoption of a proposed
ordinance to facilitate the creation of fee simple lots within multi-family
residential zones for detached condominiums as owners in other cities indicate
that they were having difficulty re-financing their homes. These owners stated
that banks were often reluctant to loan on a condominium and further appraised
their homes no differently from conventional attached condominium
developments, resulting in lower appraised values for, from all appearances,
detached single family homes.
Jan Conklin 06.19.14 Email Address Changes Upon Annexation
The City can notify the post office, King County and Puget Sound Energy, but we
have no way of notifying Google Maps to update their records with the new
addresses. It would be safer for our citizens if we did not require them to change
unless there is a life safety issue. Life safety issues would include house
addressed off of the wrong street. Numbers out of sequence or not in the correct
grid sequence. Another issue would be an isolated island of homes surrounded
by City addresses.
Rocale
Larry
Paul
07.10.14
03.20.15
07.16.15
Email
Email
Verbal
Reconsideration Procedures
The code does not limit the number of reconsiderations a single person can apply
for. Additionally, there is no allowing for parties of record to comment when a
reconsideration/appeal is being considered. Additionally there appears to be
duplication of the option to request a reconsideration unless the one of the
citations is moved under a sub-header or they can be consolidated into one.
Revise the RMC 4-8-110.E.2 and RMC 4-8-110E.13 to better define the
reconsideration process
Appeal Process
Review why a party of record who is not an appellant or develop be permitted to
argue the case by letter, when they can’t do it orally. See Tiffany Park Appeal
Parties of Record
Redefine “Party of Record” in order to determine what constitutes “testimony”
and “timely.” Staff is unable to determine when parties of record are no longer
able to be established, and what is considered testimony.
Neil Watts 09.12.14 Email Street Excavations
Maintenance has found several sewer and storm main lines that have been
damaged by boring activity from franchise utility work, sometimes resulting in a
conduit being installed right through a city sewer main. We are addressing the
problem by requiring the franchise utilities, such as PSE, to video the nearby City
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 4 of 7
owned lines following completion of their boring project. We developed
language for the upcoming PSE electrical franchise to add to our enforcement
authority. However we also have problems with gas and communication lines
which will be subject to new franchise negotiations for many years. Consider
adding permit requirement language to city code to help address the problem.
Vanessa 11.17.14 Email Clustering Provisions
Change of clustering provisions to use PUD provision of RMC or establish
standards for clustering beyond open space.
Rocale 12.10.14 Email Refine the Definitions of: Lot Types, Lot Measurements, Lot Lines, and Yards
The code does not accurately define common lot types, lot width and lot depth,
individual lot lines, and the definitions of each type of yard.
Angie 01.30.15 Email Channel Migration Zones
Adopt the work that King County is doing with Cedar River Channel Migration
Zones
Angie, per David
Nives
02.10.15 Email Beekeeping in Commercial and Industrial Zones
Request from citizen to allow beekeeping in commercial and industrial zones
Chip and Rocale 04.10.15 Email Automall: Update the Improvement Plan
Consider expanding the boundaries for the Automall area to include East Valley
Road given the location of Harley, Honda, and potentially CarMax. Also, address
dealer’s needs in regards to promotional flags and other signage for consistency
with new laws.
Angie 07.16.15 Verbal Density in the CD Zone
Reconcile mismatch between maximum density and maximum height. The
density limit will not likely result in the maximum height being achieved.
Paul 07.16.15 Verbal Land Use Permit Expirations
Establish expiration periods for various land use permits. Land use approvals
should have time limits because as conditions change the approved development
may no longer be compatible.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 5 of 7
Submittal Standards
Rocale 01.20.10 Email Add Design Checklist to the Submittal Requirements if located in a design district T
Chip 02.11.10 Email Remove submittal standards from code and establish as a handout and post on
the web in order to keep current and provide reasonable public access. T
Laureen 10.01.09 Email Overall plan sheet set for short/full plats. Move to Submittal Standards. T
Laureen 04.02.10 Email Add text to submittal requirements due to adoption of new Storm Drainage
Regulations T
Rocale 05.25.11 Email Submittal Checklists reference the older manual for the Drainage Report
requirements. It should be changed from 1990 to 2009.
Stacy 07.22.11 Email Remove the requirements from home occupations that the applicant is
responsible for providing current mailing labels.
Laureen 07.24.13 Email Add tree retention worksheet
Administrative Code Interpretations (to be created)
Kris
Rocale/Vanessa
07.10.15
01.27.15
Email
Email
Stream Reclassification
Stream reclassification for Maplewood Creek Subarea stream based on biological
assessements.
Copperwood Preliminary Plat resulted in a reclassification of a stream that needs
to be adopted as a part of the Stream Classification Map.
Jennifer 06.10.10 Email Definitions for construction waste and demolition waste that was deleted from
the code
Critical Area Regulations prohibit landfills with certain types of construction/
demolition waste in Aquifer Protection Areas. However, the definitions of
construction and demolition waste were previously deleted from the Code. This
item seeks to reinstate those definitions.
T
Phil Olbrechts 05.01.12 Email Hearing Examiner Evidence
Conflict between the “limited new evidence” rule of Reg Reform and the
reconsideration provision of the RMC. See Seelig HEX decision, 05.01.2012.
T
Laureen 03.04.14 Email Mylar Requirements
Change the regulations to only require paper plan set submittals for recording for
short plats, plats, and lot line adjustments, instead of mylars
Laureen 11.29.10 Email Delete Chapter 2 illustrations, which no longer contain useful numerical data
and incorrectly depict existing standards T
Erika
Vanessa
09.17.12
12.19.13
Email
Email
Shorelines
Update code to reflect “substantial development” threshold increase to $6,416
Update titles for Shoreline Environments in RMC 4-9-070H per new SMP names
T AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 6 of 7
Vanessa 07.28.14 Email Correct WAC citation typo in the SMP regarding Hazardous Substance
Remediation.
Housekeeping Items
Vanessa 05.19.14 Email Expiration and Extension
RMC 4-9-240O should be amended to clarify that a TUP can be approved up to 5
years. Subsection 1 and subjection 3 conflict.
Chip 07.01.15 Verbal Map PUDs
Vanessa 08.22.12 Email RMC 4-8-080 refers to subsection H, which has been repealed. Possible
housekeeping item T
Laureen 08.31.12 Email Add road/sidewalk cross section-type graphics to the code T
Jerry 09.27.12 Email Update code to remove sections that refer to the Real Estate Sign Kiosk Program T
Laureen 12.27.12 Email Update code to reference FEMA approved Cedar River Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) maps. Update flood hazard section to align with current FEMA flood
area terminology.
T
Elizabeth 05.02.13 Written Remapping of contiguous open space corridor T
Jerry 10.18.13 Email Reclass a stream from Class 4 to Class 3 for the Roman Short Plat T
Vanessa 11.19.13 Email Update RMC-4-4-030B Adoption by Reference to include Plans that have been
adopted T
Jennifer 01.16.14 Email Codifier Errors: “Recreational facilities, outdoor” are allowed in the RM, IM, and
IL zones, but not the IH
The notes for Mini, Micro, and Macro wireless facilities have been transposed
P
Rocale 07.24.14 Email Relocate Arterial Street Plan map (and potentially other street standards) to the
complete street section of the code.
Rocale 12.10.14 Email Master Site and Site Plan Review Decision Maker
RMC 4-9-200.E references the Administrator as the decision maker when it can
either be the Administrator or the Hearing Examiner. The text should be
changed to reflect both the Administrator or the Hearing Examiner
Administrative Code Interpretations (from January 2015 to Current)
CI-61, Title Reports
CI-62, Side Yard Abutting Shared Driveways
CI-63, Signage located within the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) jurisdiction
CI-64, Side Yard Setback Requirements adopted under Ordinance 5724
CI-65, Time Review Period for Minor Alterations
CI-66, Minimum Dimensions for Wireless Landscaping/Screening
CI-67, Minimum Front Yard for Alley Accessed Garages
CI-68, Fence Height for Side Yards Along a Street and Rear Yards Abutting a Street AGENDA ITEM #4. a)
Page 7 of 7
CI-69, Fence Height Requiring Building Permit
CI-70, Allowed Projection into Setbacks: Fences/Retaining Walls
CI-71, Underground Utilities Exemption Process
CI-72, Applicable Landscaping Requirements and Bicycle Parking Requirements in the Center Downtown (CD) zone
CI-73, Residential Building Height (RC thru R-14)
CI-74, Amendments to Wireless Communication Facility Regulations
CI-75, Clarification as to whether tracts created for native growth protection, stormwater detention facilities, open space, and/or private access are
counted towards the total lot count for the purpose of determining whether a proposed subdivision is a short plat or is a plat.
CITY CENTER COMMUNITY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
1.1.1 Update existing design standards for the City Center to ensure new development will fulfill the vision.
1.1.2 Create cohesive urban design standards for the public realm that include standards for gateways, wayfinding, street trees, street lighting,
pedestrian-scaled lighting, landscaping, street furniture, utilities, and public art.
4.2.1 Consider rezoning the intact, single-family area of the South Renton neighborhood.
3.1.1 Complete a conceptual plan for the civic node
6.11.1 Establish priority bicycle improvements consistent with the Trails and Bicycle Master Plan within City Center subarea.
AGENDA ITEM #4. a)